My place of work seems to have gone a bit LBGT crazy over the past year, there’s suddenly special staff groups, an LGBT official Twitter ID, time out from work to attend meetings, badges everywhere and loads of stuff in the internal news sheet. It’s all cool, although it feels (admittedly from a straight male perspective; privilege check) like its fighting a battle that is largely won in my organisation. It has always been a very liberal and welcoming environment for all of life’s various sexualities; I’m aware of most flavours of person, but it’s literally no big deal. However, this recent LGBT push seems to have either exposed or maybe even created an embryonic divide that I was previously unaware of. During the course of several conversations recently I’ve come across a feeling that it’s ‘all gone a bit far’ and people seem a tiny bit concerned that some are getting special treatment. Interestingly this has come from both straight and LGBT members of staff.
The issue came to prominence recently when an LGBT flyer with various different sexualities in circles was ‘defaced’ by a person unknown adding an additional circle with ‘straight’ written in it. This was complained about, and has been described as homophobic graffiti by someone, which felt inflammatory.
Now, I’m very aware that I’m coming to this from a position of a straight male, never been discriminated against privilege, but this doesn’t feel like homophobia to me; but certainly feels like a tell tale sign of a developing problem.
what I thought I’d do next, is ask a load of mostly middle class straight white chaps what they think. Errr... hmmm.
Anyway, I’m still interested in what you think, and I’m aware that a few of us aren’t the aforementioned stereotype, so I’d especially interested to hear your perspectives. Thanks all.
Does the word "heterophobic" exist? Because complaining about a rectification to add "straight" strikes me as heterophobic.
I'm cool with people doing whatever they want to do with any other willing/consenting adults behind closed doors and have no problem with all sexualties enjoying the same freedoms to touch, kiss or whatever in public. All the various tendancies in my entourage manage that really well so there isn't a issue. Simple.
Some people can make an issue off something and make a fool of themselves. In this case the person clamining "homophobic" would have done better to think "oops", take the poster down, rectify to add "straight" or "heterosexual" and then post it back up.
If it was a poster showing different sexualities, then straight is indeed a valid sexuality. I mean, it’s a bit weird and wrong but if people are that way, fair enough.
Rachel
an LGBT flyer with various different sexualities in circles was ‘defaced’ by a person unknown adding an additional circle with ‘straight’ written in it
Depends, was the flyer targeting specifically the lgbt community to let them know of some event or activity for them, then it could be construed as homophobic, if it was just some poster saying "we are all equal etc" then heterosexual should really be included in the first place.
I expect this thread will turn into a shitshow, but anyway:
I understand the sentiment behind actions like this, but also feel it's missing the point. It's possible that your company truly is inclusive and wonderful and no one there needs to worry about discrimination because of their sexuality, but in general that's not the case.
Affirmative action/positive discrimination exists to try and close a gap, to combat subconscious prejudices most of us hold on some level. Being straight is still the norm, they're included by default. I expect if a straight person wanted to attend one of these LGBTQ support groups they'd be welcome to, scrawling on the flyer does come across as passive aggressive and hostile to me.
If it was only aimed at the LBGT community then it's exclusive and discriminatory on a public noticeboard. Turn it aound and have something that includes straight, transgender and lesbian but misses out... . You'd expect the group missed out to add themselves.
Equality is only equality when it's inclusive.
If it was only aimed at the LBGT community then it’s exclusive and discriminatory on a public noticeboard. Turn it aound and have something that includes straight, transgender and lesbian but misses out… . You’d expect the group missed out to add themselves.
Equality is only equality when it’s inclusive.
Really depends how it's pitched. If they're saying "this event is exclusively for gay people", then sure, but I think that's likely to be a straw man.
Assuming it's an interest/awareness group then I think it would be weird to list straight too, seeing it as a topic rather than a set of criteria for attending.
Not sure sure its homophobic but it certainly fails the dont be a dick rule
It’ll be the same posters as we have and it’s quite evident that it is for all to attend. I’ve seen mixed reactions as you say from all parties but overall no one really cares and just see it as another event.
It seems a little petty to add the straight comment well actually pathetic as no one is excluded from the events.
The LGBT etc 'community' is not as joined up as some people think. I know of gay people who, having been proudly part of it for decades, are now distancing themselves from it due to homophobia within. Similary, I believe a significant amount of lesbians are now asking what is in it for them as it doesn't seem to represent their interests.
I think it will disappear as a term sooner rather later and it won't matter to 95%+ of the poplation what your sexual orientation is.
The real question is if you pull a beautiful woman and when you get down to it and she has a penis do you:
A) Freak out.
B) Say you’re straight and insult them.
C) Have another scotch and try something new.
It might have to be C if the scotch is good and she’s a hottie but I might regret it in the morning if I can’t sit on my saddle!
B)
D) let Willy decide. If he won't play, apologise.
At least one of our contributors with experience says sodomy isn't obligatory, Frank.
You missed option D) Assault and/or murder them with minimal consequences because half of the world still thinks that's a reasonable reaction.
This is why complaining that LGBTQ campaigners exclude straight people seems petty at best.
Depends, was the flyer targeting specifically the lgbt community to let them know of some event or activity for them, then it could be construed as homophobic, if it was just some poster saying “we are all equal etc” then heterosexual should really be included in the first place.
Pretty much my thoughts I think.
Not sure sure its homophobic but it certainly fails the dont be a dick rule
And that one.
There's a part of me that wonders whether to achieve true equality we have to first allow the unequal to become "more equal" before everything settles down to a status quo. If that makes any sense.
The problem I see with any of this is that such 'staff groups' end up promoting difference to the point of potentially creating new sorts of divides. So, for example, I believe that people experience and manifest an array of sexualities, but defining ourselves as such (for example, by establishing a group in the workplace based on any one of those sexualities) can create an 'us and them' environment.
I don't want to think of someone whose sexuality is different to mine as 'them'; we're all just 'us'.
I understand why the sexual liberation movement began, and how it was necessary for a whole variety of people; I can't wait, though, until the language of division disappears, and we can all just act like human beings in pursuit of goodness.
Well put, Saxonrider.
Well said, sir.
I guess a part of this stems from whether people in minorities want to be equal, or want to be special. And other people's (accurate or not) perception of this.
And then we're into the whole woolly area of "equal" vs "fair." If you have two sweets and two kids then giving them one each is equality. However if one of them already has a bagful of sweets then giving both to the one who has none, or asking the other to share, is fair.
Personally, I am sick of having the gay agenda rammed down my throat.
Ermm, that's not their agenda...
Genuine question as I am interested: is transgender considered a sexuality as people keep referring to or a gender? And if a gender why is transgender lumped in with the sexualities ie. LBGT? Surely trans people can be either LBG (EDIT: or Straight based on their identifying gender)
Personally I like people for whom they are based on their personality and nothing else so their gender/sexuality doesn't factor in the decision.
Yeah, that gay agenda
The real question is if you pull a beautiful woman and when you get down to it and she has a penis do you:
Phone the police and report him for sexual assault.
I have gay, trans, lesbian and "straight" friends. And even old school queer ones. We never actually discuss this stuff, we just get on with being friends. Maybe coming from a background of publishing and the fringes of the music biz meant there were a lot more out persons in my social circle. (S****s).
Funny the word I put in quotes was straight because I always hated the phrase "bent" being used to describe gay people.
Anyway all this angst and soul searching seems to be a recent problem and I don't know why. I've always worked and socialised in an accommodating environment, I don't understand what is happening now. The Jordan P thread is typical, too many people over thinking stuff.
Genuine question as I am interested: is transgender considered a sexuality as people keep referring to or a gender? And if a gender why is transgender lumped in with the sexualities ie. LBGT? Surely trans people can be either LBG (EDIT: or Straight based on their identifying gender)
Gender is one aspect and sexuality is another. I would respectfully and sensitively suggest that the issue of gender dysphoria/transgender identity is included in the term 'LBGTQ' because the pst experience of transgender individuals being marginalised in socierty is closely aligned to that of the LBGQ community's past marginalisation.
You also have to consider that a trans-female who's preference is for men would likely have had to deal with being identified as gay for a large part of their life and would still be regarded by some people as gay (since they would struggle to identify that individual as female and therefore straight).
The problem I see with any of this is that such ‘staff groups’ end up promoting difference to the point of potentially creating new sorts of divides. So, for example, I believe that people experience and manifest an array of sexualities, but defining ourselves as such (for example, by establishing a group in the workplace based on any one of those sexualities) can create an ‘us and them’ environment.
I don’t want to think of someone whose sexuality is different to mine as ‘them’; we’re all just ‘us’.
I understand why the sexual liberation movement began, and how it was necessary for a whole variety of people; I can’t wait, though, until the language of division disappears, and we can all just act like human beings in pursuit of goodness.
Nah you definitely don't fit well in this country.
trans-female
You can't transition from a male to a female. That's biology. Transitioning from man to woman, that's gender. I think we need to stop getting the two mixed up and stop pretending it's all the same.
You can’t transition from a male to a female. That’s biology. Transitioning from man to woman, that’s gender.I think we need to stop getting the two mixed up and stop pretending it’s all the same.
And I think we need to stop caring and let people get on with with their lives, the way they want to live them, and stop trying to be smart about terminology and definitions.
At the risk of repeating myself,
Well said, sir.
Is there a pic of the poster, pre or post modifiction, available for our perusal?
v8ninety you don’t work for the EA by any chance?
And I think we need to stop caring and let people get on with with their lives, the way they want to live them, and stop trying to be smart about terminology and definitions.
Sounds great doesn't it? Unfortunately the terminology and definition does matter because it has the potential to impact the ability of a whole group people to do the same and live the way they want to. If it didn't matter there wouldn't be the deliberate blurring going on in the first place.
The problem I see with any of this is that such ‘staff groups’ end up promoting difference to the point of potentially creating new sorts of divides.
The problem I see is ‘staff groups’ doing all this during work hours when they ought to be, silly old-fashioned me, doing some bloody work.
In you own time, no problem, but a lot of folk like getting involved in employee forum type crap so they get an extra hour or two off work every fortnight.
get an extra hour or two off work
It is work though. I couldn't be bothered to do it
Unfortunately the terminology and definition does matter because it has the potential to impact the ability of a whole group people to do the same and live the way they want to.
I'm not sure I know what you mean by that but I'm prepared to accept you might have a point and not pre-judge what you're trying to say.
So, what do you mean?
For many years lgbtq people had to keep their head down and carry on regardless, usually living a lie, and not declaring their sexuality,for fear of victimization, bullying or the sack/transfer away from their choice of work. It happened and probably still does.
Now the boat has turned on the tide, and the tide appears to have become a tidal wave of LGBTQ, positiveness, problem is some people still cant accept who a person sleeps with or thee sexual preferences, and feel that the LGBTQ way of life is being force fed to them.
Finally some companies are seeing it as good marketing publicity to attract the pink pound, of which there is a lot around.
For those who disagree with all this LGBTQ stuff perhaps sit down with fellow workers who are of the tribes and ask them about their life before they came out, and how things have changed mostly for the better over the last 25 years, thats if theyre old enough to have memories going that far back.
I work in very large global organisation that is very PC, and we have seen similar recently. It’s pretty easy to ignore if you are not interested. They will focus on something else in a few months. Treat people by their merits, rather than anything else, and you can’t go wrong really.
This won’t happen often but I agree with Nealglover. Rene you seem to trying to make an issue out of something that really isn’t an issue.
Unfortunately the terminology and definition does matter because it has the potential to impact the ability of a whole group people to do the same and live the way they want to.
This needs explaining.
What group are you suggesting is negatively impacted if we decide not bother nitpicking and getting all smart about definitions and terminology ?
Who are they? and how will be stopped from living the life they want to live.
Genuine question as I am interested: is transgender considered a sexuality as people keep referring to or a gender? And if a gender why is transgender lumped in with the sexualities ie. LBGT? Surely trans people can be either LBG (EDIT: or Straight based on their identifying gender)
At risk of generalisation, trans people don't want a 'transgender' checkbox when asked to mark their gender on a form. They want to be able to be the gender they identify as, have other people treat them as that gender, without needing that "trans" qualifier.
I think geetee has it right as to why this gets included when talking about sexuality. Similar experiences, similar prejudices involved.
I’ve skipped a lot of this but can I say C?
I’ve skipped a lot of this but can I say C?
Never say never...
'You can’t transition from a male to a female. That’s biology.'
Miranda Yardley - a transwoman - was permanently banned from Twitter for saying just that
http://mirandayardley.com/en/i-permanently-banned-twitter-make-worry/
its fighting a battle that is largely won in my organisation
To you maybe, but does everyone else agree. I would say the same about my organisation but there must be thousands of people who don't get it, won't accept it etc,. just the same as the millions of people in this country.
...and there are thousands of people who are just not interested. I am completely libertarian about what people do in private but I think there are more pressing issues like poverty and inequality that can be forced off the agenda by gender and identity politics and calling people out etc etc. When May and Markle can describe themselves as feminists you know how a lot of this stuff has become vacuous and unthreatening.
So, what do you mean?
I mean female women are being disadvantaged. You know that big group of people who on one hand as modern men we argue that they are not being treated equal, yet on the other hand as modern men we decide its ok to let femine males gatecrash and claim their places and space as their own. Allowing femine men to stand in all women shortlists in politics, femine men being given jobs as women's reps, femine men entering and competing in women' sports, femine men taking womens places in prisons, hospitals, shelters etc etc. It's real and it's happening and no matter however small a scale it is happening on it still impacts a whole other group of people. People talk about white male privilege on here, and this issue is the ultimate example if it. Men deciding that femine men are not acceptable as men therefore driving them to be women instead where they must fit in better as they are not like us. When women question this the men get upset and start banning them from things instead of discussing in a rational matter. That's why the definitions are important and matter, women for ever have been disadvantaged due to the biological differences they have with men. They are still fighting to overcome this.
Yeah, that's definitely it - "femine men" are being driven to become women. 🤦♀️
Rachel
instead of discussing in a rational matter.
I like a lot of what you wrote but the but above is a problem (along with the being driven to change bit). I think a lot of people are trying to discuss this in a rational manner but there are some real conflicts and in the end someone has to make a decision, even if that is changed later.
If gender is a social construct and people want to transition to another gender then yes they are to a degree being driven to make that change. Gender shouldn't matter, that's what feminists have been arguing for years. When some people realise this they then switch the debate to biology, and when it's pointed out that biological sex is different to and does not equal gender then they start to blur the lines and as is happening now the line disappears altogether.
I shall give way to your greater knowledge and experience of the subject, Rene59...
rachel
more pressing issues like poverty and inequality that can be forced off the agenda by gender and identity politics and calling people out etc etc.
Not sure why a company would have internal groups and initiatives for poverty and inequality in society so don't understand how that could possible be forced off the agenda?
I shall give way to your greater knowledge and experience of the subject, Rene59…
rachel
A proper and literal LOL at that one 😂
👍👍
Not sure why a company would have internal groups and initiatives for poverty and inequality in society so don’t understand how that could possible be forced off the agenda?
Ever worked somewhere and watched some idiot get promoted because they went to private school with the boss/boss' offspring, or play golf, or some other old boys network. Or noticed how the board of directors get huge bonuses and parachute payments when they leave whilst the cleaner gets a pay freeze and subcontracted out so they don't have to even be paid the same workplace benefits as regular staff. Same problems in recruitment.
Workplaces shaft the poor just like any other marginalised group.
Laugh all you want but if you think gender and sex are the same thing then the jokes on you.
Somebody needs to think of the pansexuals in all of of this.
Laugh all you want but if you think gender and sex are the same thing then the jokes on you.
Oh we’re laughing alright but at you.
'That’s why the definitions are important and matter, women for ever have been disadvantaged due to the biological differences they have with men.'
This. If you think biology is irrelevant, if you think women don't suffer discrimination and disadvantage because of biology, you clearly haven't been following the news in Ireland. Not a single biological male - whatever gender they identify as - has ever died of sepsis due to being denied an abortion while miscarrying. Not one.
Somebody needs to think of the pansexuals in all of this
huckleberryfatt
If you think biology is irrelevant, if you think women don’t suffer discrimination and disadvantage because of biology, you clearly haven’t been following the news in Ireland. Not a single biological male – whatever gender they identify as – has ever died of sepsis due to being denied an abortion while miscarrying. Not one.
Sorry but that right there is transmisogynist hatred.
Sorry but that right there is transmisogynist hatred.
Wait... a hatred of people who who hate women and trans people? Count me in too, please.
Laugh all you want but if you think gender and sex are the same thing then the jokes on you.
Of course you are right - they are different. I did use the wrong word I should have said trans-woman not trans-female.
Your argument is the same one that got Jenni Murray sanctioned by the BBC and Germain Greer 'no-platformed' by a university or two.
It is sort of 'through the looking glass' though when a feminist argues in such a way as to make them sound trans-phobic.
It is sort of ‘through the looking glass’ though when a feminist argues in such a way as to make them sound trans-phobic.
Is it? Never heard of a TERF* then I take it?
Rene's whole post reads as a TERF argument. Yeah, because it's male priviliege that makes people want to change sex. Of course women never do that either, that would be ludicrous...
*Trans-Excluionary Radical Feminist
For the record I'm neither radical or a feminist and I fully support transpeoples right to identify, dress and present as anything they want to.
I believe the term TERF is considered by many women to be misogynistic.
Women identifying as men doesn't have the same impact on men as men identifying as women has on women. Have a think about it. If it did then there wouldn't be an argument about it at all. It wouldn't be happening.
Well considering I know plenty of feminists from a wide cross section who are more clued up than I am and use the term quite happily I'm not sure who thinks it's misogynistic. Or even how it could be taken as such.
'Never heard of a TERF'
Yes. Often preceded by the words 'punch a' or 'burn in a fire', TERF is a derogatory and misogynistic term used to silence women seeking to discuss self id.
Recent research using brain scanning technologies has shown that trans people show clear activity in their cortex that is appropriate to the gender they identify with, not the gender their physical appearance says they should be. Which supports what they’ve been saying all along.
Ever worked somewhere and watched some idiot get promoted because they went to private school with the boss/boss’ offspring, or play golf, or some other old boys network. Or noticed how the board of directors get huge bonuses and parachute payments when they leave whilst the cleaner gets a pay freeze and subcontracted out so they don’t have to even be paid the same workplace benefits as regular staff. Same problems in recruitment.
Workplaces shaft the poor just like any other marginalised group.
I haven't worked somewhere like that no but realise it exists. I think it is a a different thing though and would not just be promoting awareness and would not be pushed off the table because of the "gay agenda"
An awful lot of these issues would be solved or at least become non issues if people tried harder to follow Wheaton’s Law.
Very insensitive bringing up a law about dicks on such a thread.
Women identifying as men doesn’t have the same impact on men as men identifying as women has on women. Have a think about it. If it did then there wouldn’t be an argument about it at all. It wouldn’t be happening.
I can't see how you can make any kind of argument for anyone coming out as anything as having an impacft on anyone beyond the immediate circle of friends of the person doing the coming out.
How can someone coming out as a trans-woman have an impact on women in general?
Now I do understand the argument that Germain Greer made, and for which she got 'no platformed', which is that you canno equate the experience of a trans-woman to that of someone who has lived as a woman their whole life. That's simple the nature of experience, in the classic way that Laing described it in 'The Politics of Experience' but that applies to everyone about everything, not just gender.
Naturally Greer takes that argument furter by saying that a trans-woman will have benefited at least in part from a degree of 'priviledge' associated with having lived as a man for some of their life but then we're just back into this issue of apparent priviledge and you know what I think about that!
I read 'The Female Eunuch' for my undergrad and thought very highly of it. I think at the time it was written it must of resonated very strongly and even when I read it, in 1993, I could see evidence that supported it. I think though, like most cultural ideas, the progress we've made has rendered it largely irrelevant, which is why we have 'third wave feminism' as the last gasp effort to keep the movement alive.
The main problem with saying that the lived experience of trans women is different to that of other women is it implies the experience of other women is totally consistent. And it’s not.
Rachel
I'm just here to agree with Rachel.
Carry on…
Re the o.p. I think whoever “defaced”the sign has a chip on their shoulder.
fwiw , where I work ,an individual has just transitioned in a very public manner and I am glad to say that my colleagues(ruftytufty engineering types) have not said one disparaging word. Two of those colleagues , when I started(14years ago)where reticent to be open about their gay children. Now they don’t give a monkeys. Hurray for the 21 century. Imo.
Again, only ever women and one trans I've heard discussing TERFs, obviously they must be self hating.
By TERF I am talking about those in the feminist community that actively hate and discriminate against trans folk.
And Rachel, you nailed my thoughts on that argument right in the head.
Laugh all you want
I’m actually still smiling about it now to be honest 😆
the jokes on you.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. Not convinced you know what it is that I was amused by anyway. 👍
I can’t see how you can make any kind of argument for anyone coming out as anything as having an impacft on anyone beyond the immediate circle of friends of the person doing the coming out.
How can someone coming out as a trans-woman have an impact on women in general?
Is it it not the argument that was pushed out when Bruce Jenner came out (I want to say Kylie/Kendal Jenner but feel that/they might be different) and then won woman of the year awards. It should not have any impact on people not directly involved but it seems to and I guess that would be the point of the inclusive event in the op...
It's not homophobic as such, any more than "all lives matter" is racist. But it's a fair bet that the venn diagram of people who'd do that and people who are homophobic probably has a lot of overlap.